Ms Manem Roshini

Ir

IIFAINI

al {ncrsrnare

HE COURT OF JUDICIOF FIRST CLASS COURT,

PATHAPATNAM

! 0006032025

PresenMs. M. Roshini, fe of lsf C/ass, Judicial P thapatnam.

BETWEEN:

The state represented by Sub:l nspector of Police, Saravakota.

-- Complainant

AND:

Korla Shiva @ Munna S/O late Dege laraju, 23 years, R/O Budithi village, Saravakota, Srikakulam.

-- Accused

This is the case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the state and complainant and Sri. Ramana, Legal aid counsel, for the Accused and on having heard both sides, this court made the following:

JDGMENT

1. - This is the crime filed by th Sub lnspector of Police, Saravakotta Police

Station in Crime No. 101/2025 uer Section 457 and 380 of IPC against the accused.

2

a) LW1 came to Saravapolice station and gave a report to LW'12

stating that she is resident of Buditti Village and in the year 2004 her

maniage was saloonizedVachanna lswanao. And during their conjugal life they blessed with oneby name Dilip, who is of '18 years of age.

I I

2

ilFAtRil

Because of disputes between her husband she left her husband's hguse. And she retumed to her parents' house located at Buditti Village.

b) On 14.04.2924, LW1 came to police station and gave a report stating that she along with her parents went to the house of her brother at Bengaluru ' by y properly locking their house and Ieft the home. On 34.02.2024 at about 16 hours when they retumed back to their home, LW'l went to backyard through the foot way adjacent to the house for having bath. And she noticed that the backyard doors werc found open. On that she raised alarm. Then her opposite house holder Balakrishna and some others rushed there, went into the house and found that the iron almirah in the bedroom was on the bed with broke open locks and found that Gold omaments i.e. one pair of gold ear studs weighed about 114 lula, 1 pair of gold eanings weighed about 1 by 4 tola, 1 pair of gold satimanam about 1/4 tola, 1 pair of silver anklets weighed about 5 and a half tolas, 2 pairs of gold eanings weighed about 1 tola, 2 gold rings About 1 tula and 1 gold Anjaneya Swamy locket and 2 small gold rings

about 3/4 tula were stolen away by someone, The total worth of gold

' omaments is { 63,000 and the worth of silver omaments is { 2,200. Total

worth T 65,200.

c)

Basing on the report of LWI , LW12 registered case in Crime No.

10112024 under Section 457 and Section 380 of IPC of Sarokota Police

Station and started investigation.

d) During the course of investigation LW12 examined LWl to LW4 and recorded the statements, inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators LV\6 and'LW7, prepared rough sketch of scene of ofience and got drafted the scene observation report by mediators duly attested by them.

e) LW13 assumed charge of Saravakotta police station and took up further investigation. On 27.O8.2O24, LW13 revisited the scene of offence and

re-examined LW1 . On re-examination of LW'l , she stated that And

' conoborated the facls in FIR and further she added that there are 3 pairs of silver toe rings are stolen by the culprits at the time of theft in her house and she did not mention the same in complaint which she has forgotten. On 3ilFAtRil

d LW 13 through radio message and

24.05.2025, LW 11 commun

fumished fingerprint analysisreport that The 10 digit fingerprint slip of suspect was received from SH, Jalamuru P. S. On verification of the chance print marked E bearing num73405651 in the above refened case was found identical with Left littlenger impression of the finger print slip of the ofiender who is the accused.

0

On such clue, LW13 kepf an eye over the activities of the accused and during the efforts with RAPO lnformation System, on 06.06.2025, LW13 arested the accused and received And recovered stolen property in Crime

No. '101 ot 2O24 and also in 14 other cases in the presenoe of mediators LV16 and LV1E under the cover of cdnfession statement and seizurenama.

S) During the confessioJ, the accused confessed that they have

committed several thefts in various places like Saravakottam, Jalumurum,

Shrikakulam, Echerlam, Jeyrpuram, Narsanapetta, Denkadam, Laverum a and On conflrmation with theIame. With the concemed SHOs, it is revealed that the accused committed thefts in various cases in conneclion with Crime

No. 10112024 of Saravakota PS , Crime No. 30 of 2025 ol Saravakota PS ,

Crime No. 1O7 of 2O25 of Jalamuru P. S . , Crime No. 90 of 2025 of

Sukakulam two town police slation, Crime No. 145 oi 2025 of Echerla police station, Crime No. 146 of 2025 of Herla P. S . , Crime No. 278 ot 2024 of J. R.

Puram P. S . , Crime No. 85 of 2025 of Srikakulam two town P. S . , Crime

No. 144 of 2025 of Herla P. S . , Crime No. 118 oi 2025 of J.R. Puram P. S . ,

Crime No. 307 of 2025 of Of Etcher la P. S . , Crime No. 181 of 2025 ot

Narasannabetta P. S . , Crime No. 153 of 2025 of Denkada P. S . , Crime No.

190 of 2025 of Laveru P.S. and Crime No. 39 of 2025 of Etcher la P.S.

h) During the confession of the accused, he was found in possession of one hand bag. On verification of hand bag they noticed two polythene covers.

ln first potythene cover Gold omaments belonged to Crime No. 101 ol 2024 of Sarvakota P P. . S . were fecovered and in second polythene cover, crime property of Crime No. 107/2025 of Jalamuru P P. . S . were recovered. ln I version of confession staterfent of accused, LW13 seized 12 motorcyclesI 4ilFAtRil from the possession of the accused in the presence of mediators under the cover of seizure norma and they belongs to various crime numbers. Later

LW13 physically verified each motorcycle. And informed the concemed police station officials and later anested the accused.

D

LW13 fonararded the accused to the court for judicial remand and

handed over the stolen property under proper acknowledgment to the

concemed ofiicials. OnO7.O2.2O25, LW13 recovered stolen property and got it weighed by LWS and obtained its receipt. Examined LW5 and recorded his statement.

j)

On 08.06.2025 LW13 directed LV\,g and LW10 to conduct proper

. identiflcation parade with regard to recovered stolen property. As per the

directions of LW13 they conducted proper identification parade of property.

\Mrth regard to recovered stolen property in the presence of police, which was identified by LW1 among similar type of omamenls.

k) After completion of investigation, LW13 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.

On appearance of accused, case copies are fumished to the accused under

Section 2O7 ot Cr.P.C. and was examined under Section 239 of CrPC. During the examination, the substance of accusation is Put forth before the accused and on understanding the same he denied it and claimed to be tried. Charges are framed against the accused under Section 457 and 380 of l.P.C.

4.

The prosecution examined PW1 to PW1OAnd marked Exhibit Pl to Exhibit

P11, MO1 to MO9. Leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LV\Z, L\/W, LW1O. Exhibit P1 is the police Feport.

Exhibit P2 is flre scerre obseruation repoft.

Exhibit P3 is ffie confessional statement of accused dated 0A-06.2025.

Exhibit P4 is the tecovery repoft da'e,d 06.0A.2025.

Exhibit P5 is the signature of PWi on Exhibit P3.

5ilFAlRlt

Exhibft PA is the signature of PWi on Exhibit P4.

Exhibit P7 is the weighing certificate dated 07.06.2025.

Exhibit P8 is the identificatiolp of propefty report dated 08.06.2025.

Exhibit n is the report of tingerprint expert.

Exhibit P10 is the original

Exhibit Pl1 is the roughh of the scene of offence-

MO 1,1 setofearstuds,

MO 2, 1 set of gold buttalu ngs,

MO 3, 2 gold chathanamalu,

MO 4, 2 sets of earrings,

MO 5, 1 gold Anjaneswami billa,

MO 6, 2 smalt finger rings, i MO 7, 1 set of silver anklets,

MO 8, 3 sets of silver metalu

MOg to gold finger ings.

5. After the evidence of prosecuti n, the incriminating material available in lhe evidence of prosecution is put forth before the accused in Telugu language. On understanding the same, he denied itnd reported no defence evidence.

6.

Heard arguments of both sides Leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution has proved these of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed this court to convict theccused. Per mntra, the learned Counsel for accused argued that the prosecutiofailed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the finger print expert opi ion is not conoborated by any other piece of evidence and pray this court to acquit the accused.

7On having heard both sides, Whether the prosecutaonas proved the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Section

I 6IIFAINi

457 and Section 380 of lPC, beyond reasonable

doubt?

8.

Before appreciating the evidence on record, this court is of opinion that it is

better to refer relevant provision of laws.

457. Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by

night in order to commit offence punishable with

imprisonment.-

\Mroever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine, and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.

. 380. Theft in dwelling house, etc.-

Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel,

which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

9.

Thus, from the provision of law, it is very clear that the prosecution must first prove that theft occuned in the dwelling house of PW1 , and secondly that the accused is the one who committed the theft in the house of PW1 .

10. To bring home the guilt of the accused and to establish the case of

prosecution, the prosecution examined LW1 as PWI , PWl being the defacto

eomplainant deposed that on 14.04.2025, after retuming from Bengaluru along with her family members, she found the back door of her house broken open and the iron almirah placed laid on bed with its locks broken and found Gold and silver

7

ilFAtRil omaments kept in iron almirahmissing. On that she gave a report before saravakota police. Exhibit P1 is theolice report lodged by PWl . On perusal of Ex.

P1 it is noted by this court that Ex. Pl is consonance with her oral testimony. There are no material inconsistencies between Exhibit P1 and her chief examination.

11. . To conoborate the version of PWl , the prosecution examined P\Af2 and PV1B.

Pl/\2, father of PW1 and P\AB, neighbour of PWl conoborated PWI by stating that upon hearing shouting of PW1 , they rushed to the spot and noticed the broken door and almirah. From the testimony of P\AP and P\AB, it is clear that their evidence strengthens and conoborates the testimony of PW1 regarding the occunence of house-breaking and theft. PW4, who actid as mediator for scene observation, deposed that the police inspected the scene in his presence and prepared Scene observation report which is marked as Ex. P2. PW4 specifically deposed that the back door was found broken and household articles were scattered. From the

overall evidence of PW1 to PW4, this .Court finds that the prosecution has

successfully established the fact thd the house of PW1 was broken open and the iron almirah was forcibly opened and Gold and silver omaments were found missing, Thus, the fact of theft is proved. However, from the testimony of PWl to

P\ /3, it is clear that none of these witnesses are eyewitnesses to the ofience.

Therefore, the prosecution is yet to establish the link between the accused and the thet committed in the house of PW1 .

12. From the case of prosecution, it is clear enough that their case is entirely depending on the confessional statement of the accused, which is marked as

Exhibit P3. lt is a settled principle of law that any confession made to a police officer, and even if made in the presence of mediators is inadmissible under Section 25 of the lndian Evidence Act. Therefore, Exhibit P3 cannot be relied upon except to the limited extent permissible under Section 27 ot lhe Evidence Act. Seclion 27 permits admissibility if only that portion of the statement which relates to the

discovery of a new fact. ln the present case, PW4 and PW5, the mediators

deposed that the accused confessed in their presence and in pursuant to such

I

ltFAtRil confession, gold and silver omaments l.e, MO1 to MO9 were recovered tom the possession of the accused. The prosecution marked the recovery report as Exhibit

P4. Both PW4 and PWS consistently deposed regarding the recovery of MO1 to

MO9. The testimony of PW4 and PW5 remained unshaken in cross-examination.

Nothing was elicited pertaining to false implication except suggestion regarding signing the report at police station. Thus, the recovery of stolen property from the possession ofthe ac<rsed stands proved.

13. Further, to strengthen the connection between the accused and the recovered stolen property, the proseantion examined P\AA, the Fingerprint Expert.

He deposed that he visited the scene of offence on request of investing ofiicer with his dues team and developed 14 chance prints in the house of PW'|. Chance print marked "E" bearing No. 7340565'l was compared with the fingerprint slip of the accused and the said chance print was found identical with the left little finger impression of the accused, and according he gave report. Exhibit P9 is the expert report. Though leamed counsel for accused extensively cross examined the expert pertaining to removal of finger impression on passage of time, the witness gave a positive response that there are chances to vanish the flnger print impression. This was argued by the learned counsel for accused and in support of his contention, the leamed counsel for accused relied upon Musheer Khan @ Badshan Khan &

Another V. State of MP. He argued that the finger print expert opinion is only conoborative in nature and if the process ifting the prints or the delay in sending them is not explained, it losses its evidentiary value. However, on this point this cour{ is of opinion that to the date of lifting of finger prints, the clues team able to recover the impression and it was matched with the accused. Though there are chances of vanish it did not. The defense did not acknowledge the existence of finger print of accused in the house of PWl and did not explain the reason for availability of finger print of the accused in the house of PW1 , what circumstances made the accused to visit the house of PW1. The defence failed to elicit anything in cross-examination to discredit his opinion. lt is clear that Fingerprint evidence is a strong piece of scientlfic evidence. \Mren a fingerprint of the accused is found 9ltFAtRlt inside the dwelling house of ttre vifiim where theft occuned, and no explanation is

ofiered by the accused for hi$ presence, it forms a strong incriminating

I circumstance. The fingerprint evidence establishes the physical presence of the accused at the scene of offence.

14. Further, the prosecution examined PW7. PW7 deposed regarding the propgrty identification parade conducted on 06.08.2025 near Neelamani Durgamma

Temple. He testified that the omaments were mixed with similar articles and when

PW1 was called, she identified her omaments. Exhibit P8 is the identification of property parade report. The defence could not discredit the procedure followed during identification. The identificalion of property strengthens the prosecution case

that MOI to MO9 belonged to PWI . Further prosecution examined P\ /6, who

weighed the omaments and issued Exhibit P7 certificate. Though the defence 1 questioned his licence, the weighing certificate is only conoborative evidence. Even assuming some irregularity about fon-production of certificate, it does not go to theI root of the prosecution case. The investing officers examined as PW11 and PW12I to depose on procedural aspecls and through them FIR and rough sketch of scene of offence is marked. Their invefligating procedures are not shaken during their

cross examination.

I I

15. A perusal of overall testimonies of prosecution established the sequence and chain l.e, theft occuned in the house of PW1 , the accused's fingerprint was found at the sc€ne, stolen omaments were recovered from possession of accused, PW1

identified the recovered property. lt is well established principle of law that

possession of stolen property raises a presumption against the accused unless he ofiers a reasonable explanation. ln the present case, when the accused examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all incriminating circumstances and did not offer any explanation regarding possession of stolen property. His silence strengthens the prosecution case.

10ilFAtWt

'16. Though the defence contended that there is no direct evidence, PW1

admitted that she did not know who committed the theft, receipts of stolen

omaments were not produced by PW1 . Generally, in offences of house-bieaking

and theft, direct evidence is rarely available. Conviction can be based on

circumstantial and scientific evidence. Thus, with the prosecution evidence, the prosecution established the chain which was unbroken by the defense. Non- production of purchase receipts is not fatal when the victim identifies the property

and recovery is proved. Therefore, this court holds that the prosecution has

established theft was committed in the house of PW1 and the accused is the perpetrator of the alleged offence. Accordingly, this Court answers the point for determination in favour of prosecution, holding that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the ofences punishable under

Seciions 457 and38o lPC.

As a result, the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under section 457 and section 380 of lPC. Therefore, the accused is convicted for the above offences under section 24(21of Cr.P.C.,

Dictated by me using Adalath.ai application, conected and pronounced, digitally

signed by me in open court on this 15h day of May, 2026.

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Pathapatnam.

Hearing on quanfum of sentence:

On hearing of quantum of sentence, the accused submitted that he has small children to look after and that he is the sole breadwinner of his family and therefore prayed this court to take lenient view in his favour.

Considering the said submission of the accused and the nature of the offence

proved against him, this Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 8 months and 10 days and fine of Rs.50/- for the

11

ilFAtRil offence punishable under Secti457 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo I months and 10 days and fine of Rs.50/- for simple imprisonment for a period

380 of lPC. 9fi dt+ou/- 0 d,ar ,tlaU

the offence punishable under Sectde a U-uN ,J t u*k' 2

undurno &+arltl-- t dt ilnA

Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrent ly. The accused is entitled to the benefit of set off under Section 428 ol Cr.P.C. for a period of 7 months 15 days of under trial imprisonment alreadundergone by him and the said period shall be given due credit. The accused is irmed of his right to prefer an appeal against the judgment and sentence before the Hon'ble Court within the prescribed period of limitation. The accused is furlher informed that if he is unable to engage a counsel for an appeal he is entitled to seek free legal aid.

lU'ZsL,':-:-

6tr)1*

Judicial Magistrate of lst Class,

Dated: 15.05.2026

Pathapatnam.

I

IIFAINI

12

APPENDIX OF ANDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION:

RankNameNature of Evidence PWl:Botchana KrishnaveniPancha \Mtness PW2Bora SimmayyaPancha Wrtness Moyya BalakrishnaPancha \Mltness PV1B: PW4:Bairi SivakesavaMediator PW5Gondu Gajapatinarayana Raomedialor PW6Salapaka Srinivasa RaoPancha Vlfitness P\ /7Ponnana Yugandhar NaiduTest ldentification of property P.Bharath Kumarro PV1E:

to

G.Apparao Pv1/p PWlO:B.Anil Kumarro

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nit-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

S. NoRankDescription Ex.P 1PWlPolice Report

Ex.P2PW4Scene Observation Report

Ex.P3PW4Confessional Statement of acosed dated 06.06.2025

Ex.P4PW4Recovery Report dated 06.06.2025

Ex.PsSignature of P\ 5 on Ex.P3 PW5

Ex.P6PW5Signaturc of the PW5 on Ex.P4

Ex.P7PW6\Arbighing Certificate date 07 .06.2025

ldentifrcatim of property report dated

Ex.P8P\^r/ 08.06.2025

P\A

Ex.P9Report of Finger Print Expert

Ex.P10P\ /9 Original FIR

P\,9

Ex.P1'tRough Sketch ofthe scene ofofience '13ilFAtRil

FOR DEFENCE: - None -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

S. NoRankDescriotion PW1set of ear studs MO.1 MO2One set of gold buttalu earrings PW1 PW1two qold sathamanalu MO3 MO4PW1two sets of earrings MO5PW1one gold Anjaneyaswamu billa MO6PW1two small finger rings MO7PW1One set of silver anklets MO8PW13 sets of silver mettelu M09two gold finger rings. PW1

At./F,u1<)w

Dated: 15.05.2026Judicial Magistrate of 1c class,

Pathapatnam.

I ilFAtRil 14

CALENDAR & JUDGEMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE COURT OF JMFC PATHAPATNAM

14.04.2024 Date of Offence

Date of Report14.O4.2024

Date of Apprehension of06.06.2025 & 14 05.2026 Accused Date of accused released20.01.2026 on Bail Date of commence of Trail16.O4.2026

Date of Closure of Trail21.11 .2A25

Date of sentence or order14.O5.2026 of the court.

- Fe

ExpJanation for Delay anduy r n ori n in s witness - Remarks:

cc 326t2025

Calendar Case No.

Name and Address ofKorla Shiva @ Munna S/O late Degalaraju, 23 years, Accused Fi/O Budilhi village, Saravakota, Srikakulam.

Name And Address OfThe state represented by the Sub-lnspector of police, ComplainantSaravakota Police Station.

Section Of LawSection 457 and 380 of IPC

Finding of the CourtConvidion

As a result, the prosecution established the guilt of Sentence or Order of the Courtthe accused for the offence punishable under section 457 and section 380 of lPC. Therefore, the accused is convicted forthe above ofiences under section 248(2)

of Cr.P.C., the accused to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 8 months and 10 days and fine of Rs.50/- for the offence punishable under Section 457 ol IPC and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 8 months and 10 days and fine of Rs.50/- for the offence punishable under Section 380 of lPC.

15IIFAIPJI

Both the substantive sentences shall run concunently. The accused is entitled to the benefit of set off under Section 428 ot Cr.P.C. for a period of 7 months 15 days of under trial imprisonment already undergone by him and the said period shall be given due credit.

The accused is informed of his right to prefer an

appeal against the judgment and sentence before the

Hon'ble Court within the prescribed period of

limitation. The accused is further informed that if he is

unable to engage a counsel for an appeal he is

entitled to seek free legal aid.

,_t./atyntF, -

Judicial Magistrate of 1"t class,

Dated: 15.05.2026Pathapatnam.

Ir

IIFAINI

al {ncrsrnare

HE COURT OF JUDICIOF FIRST CLASS COURT,

PATHAPATNAM

! 0006032025

PresenMs. M. Roshini, fe of lsf C/ass, Judicial P thapatnam.

BETWEEN:

The state represented by Sub:l nspector of Police, Saravakota.

-- Complainant

AND:

Korla Shiva @ Munna S/O late Dege laraju, 23 years, R/O Budithi village, Saravakota, Srikakulam.

-- Accused

This is the case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the state and complainant and Sri. Ramana, Legal aid counsel, for the Accused and on having heard both sides, this court made the following:

JDGMENT

1. - This is the crime filed by th Sub lnspector of Police, Saravakotta Police

Station in Crime No. 101/2025 uer Section 457 and 380 of IPC against the accused.

2

a) LW1 came to Saravapolice station and gave a report to LW'12

stating that she is resident of Buditti Village and in the year 2004 her

maniage was saloonizedVachanna lswanao. And during their conjugal life they blessed with oneby name Dilip, who is of '18 years of age.

I I

2

ilFAtRil

Because of disputes between her husband she left her husband's hguse. And she retumed to her parents' house located at Buditti Village.

b) On 14.04.2924, LW1 came to police station and gave a report stating that she along with her parents went to the house of her brother at Bengaluru ' by y properly locking their house and Ieft the home. On 34.02.2024 at about 16 hours when they retumed back to their home, LW'l went to backyard through the foot way adjacent to the house for having bath. And she noticed that the backyard doors werc found open. On that she raised alarm. Then her opposite house holder Balakrishna and some others rushed there, went into the house and found that the iron almirah in the bedroom was on the bed with broke open locks and found that Gold omaments i.e. one pair of gold ear studs weighed about 114 lula, 1 pair of gold eanings weighed about 1 by 4 tola, 1 pair of gold satimanam about 1/4 tola, 1 pair of silver anklets weighed about 5 and a half tolas, 2 pairs of gold eanings weighed about 1 tola, 2 gold rings About 1 tula and 1 gold Anjaneya Swamy locket and 2 small gold rings

about 3/4 tula were stolen away by someone, The total worth of gold

' omaments is { 63,000 and the worth of silver omaments is { 2,200. Total

worth T 65,200.

c)

Basing on the report of LWI , LW12 registered case in Crime No.

10112024 under Section 457 and Section 380 of IPC of Sarokota Police

Station and started investigation.

d) During the course of investigation LW12 examined LWl to LW4 and recorded the statements, inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators LV\6 and'LW7, prepared rough sketch of scene of ofience and got drafted the scene observation report by mediators duly attested by them.

e) LW13 assumed charge of Saravakotta police station and took up further investigation. On 27.O8.2O24, LW13 revisited the scene of offence and

re-examined LW1 . On re-examination of LW'l , she stated that And

' conoborated the facls in FIR and further she added that there are 3 pairs of silver toe rings are stolen by the culprits at the time of theft in her house and she did not mention the same in complaint which she has forgotten. On 3ilFAtRil

d LW 13 through radio message and

24.05.2025, LW 11 commun

fumished fingerprint analysisreport that The 10 digit fingerprint slip of suspect was received from SH, Jalamuru P. S. On verification of the chance print marked E bearing num73405651 in the above refened case was found identical with Left littlenger impression of the finger print slip of the ofiender who is the accused.

0

On such clue, LW13 kepf an eye over the activities of the accused and during the efforts with RAPO lnformation System, on 06.06.2025, LW13 arested the accused and received And recovered stolen property in Crime

No. '101 ot 2O24 and also in 14 other cases in the presenoe of mediators LV16 and LV1E under the cover of cdnfession statement and seizurenama.

S) During the confessioJ, the accused confessed that they have

committed several thefts in various places like Saravakottam, Jalumurum,

Shrikakulam, Echerlam, Jeyrpuram, Narsanapetta, Denkadam, Laverum a and On conflrmation with theIame. With the concemed SHOs, it is revealed that the accused committed thefts in various cases in conneclion with Crime

No. 10112024 of Saravakota PS , Crime No. 30 of 2025 ol Saravakota PS ,

Crime No. 1O7 of 2O25 of Jalamuru P. S . , Crime No. 90 of 2025 of

Sukakulam two town police slation, Crime No. 145 oi 2025 of Echerla police station, Crime No. 146 of 2025 of Herla P. S . , Crime No. 278 ot 2024 of J. R.

Puram P. S . , Crime No. 85 of 2025 of Srikakulam two town P. S . , Crime

No. 144 of 2025 of Herla P. S . , Crime No. 118 oi 2025 of J.R. Puram P. S . ,

Crime No. 307 of 2025 of Of Etcher la P. S . , Crime No. 181 of 2025 ot

Narasannabetta P. S . , Crime No. 153 of 2025 of Denkada P. S . , Crime No.

190 of 2025 of Laveru P.S. and Crime No. 39 of 2025 of Etcher la P.S.

h) During the confession of the accused, he was found in possession of one hand bag. On verification of hand bag they noticed two polythene covers.

ln first potythene cover Gold omaments belonged to Crime No. 101 ol 2024 of Sarvakota P P. . S . were fecovered and in second polythene cover, crime property of Crime No. 107/2025 of Jalamuru P P. . S . were recovered. ln I version of confession staterfent of accused, LW13 seized 12 motorcyclesI 4ilFAtRil from the possession of the accused in the presence of mediators under the cover of seizure norma and they belongs to various crime numbers. Later

LW13 physically verified each motorcycle. And informed the concemed police station officials and later anested the accused.

D

LW13 fonararded the accused to the court for judicial remand and

handed over the stolen property under proper acknowledgment to the

concemed ofiicials. OnO7.O2.2O25, LW13 recovered stolen property and got it weighed by LWS and obtained its receipt. Examined LW5 and recorded his statement.

j)

On 08.06.2025 LW13 directed LV\,g and LW10 to conduct proper

. identiflcation parade with regard to recovered stolen property. As per the

directions of LW13 they conducted proper identification parade of property.

\Mrth regard to recovered stolen property in the presence of police, which was identified by LW1 among similar type of omamenls.

k) After completion of investigation, LW13 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.

On appearance of accused, case copies are fumished to the accused under

Section 2O7 ot Cr.P.C. and was examined under Section 239 of CrPC. During the examination, the substance of accusation is Put forth before the accused and on understanding the same he denied it and claimed to be tried. Charges are framed against the accused under Section 457 and 380 of l.P.C.

4.

The prosecution examined PW1 to PW1OAnd marked Exhibit Pl to Exhibit

P11, MO1 to MO9. Leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LV\Z, L\/W, LW1O. Exhibit P1 is the police Feport.

Exhibit P2 is flre scerre obseruation repoft.

Exhibit P3 is ffie confessional statement of accused dated 0A-06.2025.

Exhibit P4 is the tecovery repoft da'e,d 06.0A.2025.

Exhibit P5 is the signature of PWi on Exhibit P3.

5ilFAlRlt

Exhibft PA is the signature of PWi on Exhibit P4.

Exhibit P7 is the weighing certificate dated 07.06.2025.

Exhibit P8 is the identificatiolp of propefty report dated 08.06.2025.

Exhibit n is the report of tingerprint expert.

Exhibit P10 is the original

Exhibit Pl1 is the roughh of the scene of offence-

MO 1,1 setofearstuds,

MO 2, 1 set of gold buttalu ngs,

MO 3, 2 gold chathanamalu,

MO 4, 2 sets of earrings,

MO 5, 1 gold Anjaneswami billa,

MO 6, 2 smalt finger rings, i MO 7, 1 set of silver anklets,

MO 8, 3 sets of silver metalu

MOg to gold finger ings.

5. After the evidence of prosecuti n, the incriminating material available in lhe evidence of prosecution is put forth before the accused in Telugu language. On understanding the same, he denied itnd reported no defence evidence.

6.

Heard arguments of both sides Leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution has proved these of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed this court to convict theccused. Per mntra, the learned Counsel for accused argued that the prosecutiofailed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the finger print expert opi ion is not conoborated by any other piece of evidence and pray this court to acquit the accused.

7On having heard both sides, Whether the prosecutaonas proved the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Section

I 6IIFAINi

457 and Section 380 of lPC, beyond reasonable

doubt?

8.

Before appreciating the evidence on record, this court is of opinion that it is

better to refer relevant provision of laws.

457. Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by

night in order to commit offence punishable with

imprisonment.-

\Mroever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine, and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.

. 380. Theft in dwelling house, etc.-

Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel,

which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

9.

Thus, from the provision of law, it is very clear that the prosecution must first prove that theft occuned in the dwelling house of PW1 , and secondly that the accused is the one who committed the theft in the house of PW1 .

10. To bring home the guilt of the accused and to establish the case of

prosecution, the prosecution examined LW1 as PWI , PWl being the defacto

eomplainant deposed that on 14.04.2025, after retuming from Bengaluru along with her family members, she found the back door of her house broken open and the iron almirah placed laid on bed with its locks broken and found Gold and silver

7

ilFAtRil omaments kept in iron almirahmissing. On that she gave a report before saravakota police. Exhibit P1 is theolice report lodged by PWl . On perusal of Ex.

P1 it is noted by this court that Ex. Pl is consonance with her oral testimony. There are no material inconsistencies between Exhibit P1 and her chief examination.

11. . To conoborate the version of PWl , the prosecution examined P\Af2 and PV1B.

Pl/\2, father of PW1 and P\AB, neighbour of PWl conoborated PWI by stating that upon hearing shouting of PW1 , they rushed to the spot and noticed the broken door and almirah. From the testimony of P\AP and P\AB, it is clear that their evidence strengthens and conoborates the testimony of PW1 regarding the occunence of house-breaking and theft. PW4, who actid as mediator for scene observation, deposed that the police inspected the scene in his presence and prepared Scene observation report which is marked as Ex. P2. PW4 specifically deposed that the back door was found broken and household articles were scattered. From the

overall evidence of PW1 to PW4, this .Court finds that the prosecution has

successfully established the fact thd the house of PW1 was broken open and the iron almirah was forcibly opened and Gold and silver omaments were found missing, Thus, the fact of theft is proved. However, from the testimony of PWl to

P\ /3, it is clear that none of these witnesses are eyewitnesses to the ofience.

Therefore, the prosecution is yet to establish the link between the accused and the thet committed in the house of PW1 .

12. From the case of prosecution, it is clear enough that their case is entirely depending on the confessional statement of the accused, which is marked as

Exhibit P3. lt is a settled principle of law that any confession made to a police officer, and even if made in the presence of mediators is inadmissible under Section 25 of the lndian Evidence Act. Therefore, Exhibit P3 cannot be relied upon except to the limited extent permissible under Section 27 ot lhe Evidence Act. Seclion 27 permits admissibility if only that portion of the statement which relates to the

discovery of a new fact. ln the present case, PW4 and PW5, the mediators

deposed that the accused confessed in their presence and in pursuant to such

I

ltFAtRil confession, gold and silver omaments l.e, MO1 to MO9 were recovered tom the possession of the accused. The prosecution marked the recovery report as Exhibit

P4. Both PW4 and PWS consistently deposed regarding the recovery of MO1 to

MO9. The testimony of PW4 and PW5 remained unshaken in cross-examination.

Nothing was elicited pertaining to false implication except suggestion regarding signing the report at police station. Thus, the recovery of stolen property from the possession ofthe ac<rsed stands proved.

13. Further, to strengthen the connection between the accused and the recovered stolen property, the proseantion examined P\AA, the Fingerprint Expert.

He deposed that he visited the scene of offence on request of investing ofiicer with his dues team and developed 14 chance prints in the house of PW'|. Chance print marked "E" bearing No. 7340565'l was compared with the fingerprint slip of the accused and the said chance print was found identical with the left little finger impression of the accused, and according he gave report. Exhibit P9 is the expert report. Though leamed counsel for accused extensively cross examined the expert pertaining to removal of finger impression on passage of time, the witness gave a positive response that there are chances to vanish the flnger print impression. This was argued by the learned counsel for accused and in support of his contention, the leamed counsel for accused relied upon Musheer Khan @ Badshan Khan &

Another V. State of MP. He argued that the finger print expert opinion is only conoborative in nature and if the process ifting the prints or the delay in sending them is not explained, it losses its evidentiary value. However, on this point this cour{ is of opinion that to the date of lifting of finger prints, the clues team able to recover the impression and it was matched with the accused. Though there are chances of vanish it did not. The defense did not acknowledge the existence of finger print of accused in the house of PWl and did not explain the reason for availability of finger print of the accused in the house of PW1 , what circumstances made the accused to visit the house of PW1. The defence failed to elicit anything in cross-examination to discredit his opinion. lt is clear that Fingerprint evidence is a strong piece of scientlfic evidence. \Mren a fingerprint of the accused is found 9ltFAtRlt inside the dwelling house of ttre vifiim where theft occuned, and no explanation is

ofiered by the accused for hi$ presence, it forms a strong incriminating

I circumstance. The fingerprint evidence establishes the physical presence of the accused at the scene of offence.

14. Further, the prosecution examined PW7. PW7 deposed regarding the propgrty identification parade conducted on 06.08.2025 near Neelamani Durgamma

Temple. He testified that the omaments were mixed with similar articles and when

PW1 was called, she identified her omaments. Exhibit P8 is the identification of property parade report. The defence could not discredit the procedure followed during identification. The identificalion of property strengthens the prosecution case

that MOI to MO9 belonged to PWI . Further prosecution examined P\ /6, who

weighed the omaments and issued Exhibit P7 certificate. Though the defence 1 questioned his licence, the weighing certificate is only conoborative evidence. Even assuming some irregularity about fon-production of certificate, it does not go to theI root of the prosecution case. The investing officers examined as PW11 and PW12I to depose on procedural aspecls and through them FIR and rough sketch of scene of offence is marked. Their invefligating procedures are not shaken during their

cross examination.

I I

15. A perusal of overall testimonies of prosecution established the sequence and chain l.e, theft occuned in the house of PW1 , the accused's fingerprint was found at the sc€ne, stolen omaments were recovered from possession of accused, PW1

identified the recovered property. lt is well established principle of law that

possession of stolen property raises a presumption against the accused unless he ofiers a reasonable explanation. ln the present case, when the accused examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all incriminating circumstances and did not offer any explanation regarding possession of stolen property. His silence strengthens the prosecution case.

10ilFAtWt

'16. Though the defence contended that there is no direct evidence, PW1

admitted that she did not know who committed the theft, receipts of stolen

omaments were not produced by PW1 . Generally, in offences of house-bieaking

and theft, direct evidence is rarely available. Conviction can be based on

circumstantial and scientific evidence. Thus, with the prosecution evidence, the prosecution established the chain which was unbroken by the defense. Non- production of purchase receipts is not fatal when the victim identifies the property

and recovery is proved. Therefore, this court holds that the prosecution has

established theft was committed in the house of PW1 and the accused is the perpetrator of the alleged offence. Accordingly, this Court answers the point for determination in favour of prosecution, holding that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the ofences punishable under

Seciions 457 and38o lPC.

As a result, the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under section 457 and section 380 of lPC. Therefore, the accused is convicted for the above offences under section 24(21of Cr.P.C.,

Dictated by me using Adalath.ai application, conected and pronounced, digitally

signed by me in open court on this 15h day of May, 2026.

Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Pathapatnam.

Hearing on quanfum of sentence:

On hearing of quantum of sentence, the accused submitted that he has small children to look after and that he is the sole breadwinner of his family and therefore prayed this court to take lenient view in his favour.

Considering the said submission of the accused and the nature of the offence

proved against him, this Court sentenced the accused to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 8 months and 10 days and fine of Rs.50/- for the

11

ilFAtRil offence punishable under Secti457 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo I months and 10 days and fine of Rs.50/- for simple imprisonment for a period

380 of lPC. 9fi dt+ou/- 0 d,ar ,tlaU

the offence punishable under Sectde a U-uN ,J t u*k' 2

undurno &+arltl-- t dt ilnA

Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrent ly. The accused is entitled to the benefit of set off under Section 428 ol Cr.P.C. for a period of 7 months 15 days of under trial imprisonment alreadundergone by him and the said period shall be given due credit. The accused is irmed of his right to prefer an appeal against the judgment and sentence before the Hon'ble Court within the prescribed period of limitation. The accused is furlher informed that if he is unable to engage a counsel for an appeal he is entitled to seek free legal aid.

lU'ZsL,':-:-

6tr)1*

Judicial Magistrate of lst Class,

Dated: 15.05.2026

Pathapatnam.

I

IIFAINI

12

APPENDIX OF ANDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION:

RankNameNature of Evidence PWl:Botchana KrishnaveniPancha \Mtness PW2Bora SimmayyaPancha Wrtness Moyya BalakrishnaPancha \Mltness PV1B: PW4:Bairi SivakesavaMediator PW5Gondu Gajapatinarayana Raomedialor PW6Salapaka Srinivasa RaoPancha Vlfitness P\ /7Ponnana Yugandhar NaiduTest ldentification of property P.Bharath Kumarro PV1E:

to

G.Apparao Pv1/p PWlO:B.Anil Kumarro

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nit-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

S. NoRankDescription Ex.P 1PWlPolice Report

Ex.P2PW4Scene Observation Report

Ex.P3PW4Confessional Statement of acosed dated 06.06.2025

Ex.P4PW4Recovery Report dated 06.06.2025

Ex.PsSignature of P\ 5 on Ex.P3 PW5

Ex.P6PW5Signaturc of the PW5 on Ex.P4

Ex.P7PW6\Arbighing Certificate date 07 .06.2025

ldentifrcatim of property report dated

Ex.P8P\^r/ 08.06.2025

P\A

Ex.P9Report of Finger Print Expert

Ex.P10P\ /9 Original FIR

P\,9

Ex.P1'tRough Sketch ofthe scene ofofience '13ilFAtRil

FOR DEFENCE: - None -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

S. NoRankDescriotion PW1set of ear studs MO.1 MO2One set of gold buttalu earrings PW1 PW1two qold sathamanalu MO3 MO4PW1two sets of earrings MO5PW1one gold Anjaneyaswamu billa MO6PW1two small finger rings MO7PW1One set of silver anklets MO8PW13 sets of silver mettelu M09two gold finger rings. PW1

At./F,u1<)w

Dated: 15.05.2026Judicial Magistrate of 1c class,

Pathapatnam.

I ilFAtRil 14

CALENDAR & JUDGEMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE COURT OF JMFC PATHAPATNAM

14.04.2024 Date of Offence

Date of Report14.O4.2024

Date of Apprehension of06.06.2025 & 14 05.2026 Accused Date of accused released20.01.2026 on Bail Date of commence of Trail16.O4.2026

Date of Closure of Trail21.11 .2A25

Date of sentence or order14.O5.2026 of the court.

- Fe

ExpJanation for Delay anduy r n ori n in s witness - Remarks:

cc 326t2025

Calendar Case No.

Name and Address ofKorla Shiva @ Munna S/O late Degalaraju, 23 years, Accused Fi/O Budilhi village, Saravakota, Srikakulam.

Name And Address OfThe state represented by the Sub-lnspector of police, ComplainantSaravakota Police Station.

Section Of LawSection 457 and 380 of IPC

Finding of the CourtConvidion

As a result, the prosecution established the guilt of Sentence or Order of the Courtthe accused for the offence punishable under section 457 and section 380 of lPC. Therefore, the accused is convicted forthe above ofiences under section 248(2)

of Cr.P.C., the accused to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of 8 months and 10 days and fine of Rs.50/- for the offence punishable under Section 457 ol IPC and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 8 months and 10 days and fine of Rs.50/- for the offence punishable under Section 380 of lPC.

15IIFAIPJI

Both the substantive sentences shall run concunently. The accused is entitled to the benefit of set off under Section 428 ot Cr.P.C. for a period of 7 months 15 days of under trial imprisonment already undergone by him and the said period shall be given due credit.

The accused is informed of his right to prefer an

appeal against the judgment and sentence before the

Hon'ble Court within the prescribed period of

limitation. The accused is further informed that if he is

unable to engage a counsel for an appeal he is

entitled to seek free legal aid.

,_t./atyntF, -

Judicial Magistrate of 1"t class,

Dated: 15.05.2026Pathapatnam.

APSR0E0002932018

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), TEKKALI

Present:- Smt U.Madhuri,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),Palasa.

FAC/ Civil Judge (Junior Division),Tekkali.

Friday, this the 25 th day of July , 2025.

Original Suit No. 50 of 2018.

Between:

1. Borigi Someswararao, S/o Late Vishnumurty, aged 59 years, business, Srinivasanagar, Tekkali village/post/Mandalam in Srikakulam district.

2.Jami Santhakumari, W/o Ganesh, aged 41 years, housewife, Resident of Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam city and District.

…Plaintiffs.

And:

1. The District Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam district.

2. The Tahasildhar, Tekkali, Tekkali Mandalam, Srikakulam district.

3. The Village revenue officer, Akkavaram village, Tekkali Mandalam, Srikakulam District.

...Defendants.

This case coming before me on 17.06.2025 in the presence of Sri P.Babu

Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for the

Defendant Nos 1 to 3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for Permanent Injunction, restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and for costs the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

(a)It is averred that the plaintiff’s are the brother and sister and joint owners of the plaint schedule property. They jointly purchased an extent of Ac.0.07½ cents in

Survey No.251-11A in Syamasundarapuram village of Tekkali mandal from Labala

Mohanarao and others under registered sale deed dt. 18-03-2013. Since date of purchase, both the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said property uninterruptedly and prior to that the plaintiffs vendors was in peaceful possession and enjoyment with full, absolute rights. The defendants have no colour of right whatsoever over the plaint schedule property. The defendants never denied the title and possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and on the other hand they admits the same.

(b)While so, the 3rd defendant without any manner of right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property at the instance of local politicians making preparations to evict the plaintiffs from their lawful possession of the plaint schedule property and threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and in order to satisfy the local politicians, the 3rd defendant making preparations to translate his threats into action by instigating the defendants No.1 & 2. Unless injunction is granted, the plaintiff could not resist the high handed acts of the defendants. Hence, the suit.

(c)It is further averred that the defendants are being functioners of the state and government authorities, a notice under Sec.80 of CPC is mandatory as contemplated under law and wait for 2(two) months for filing the suit and if the plaint if is constrained to issue notice and wait 2 (two) months, the defendants may commit their threats into action and in which case the purpose of filing of the suit would be defeated, and the plaintiffs will sustain serious and irreparable loss. As such the plaintiffs filed a separate application under Sec.80(2) CPC to dispense with service of notice as contemplated under law.

3.On the other hand, 2nd defendant filed written statement and the same is adopted by 1st and 3rd defendants, denying the plaint averments and contending that as per the revenue records the S.No.251-11A is zeroyathi land, the total extent of the survey number is Ac.0.15 cents and at present the alleged land is in the name of RTC KARMIKULU. The land was acquired for the purpose of National

Highway constructions, this all has happened in the year 2003. The plaintiff was not filed case against the National Highways, just filed case against revenue people only by citing the land as zeroyati. In fact the real owners of the alleged land are

Highway Authorities not the revenue people.

4.It is further contended that the documents, which the plaintiffs filed, in support of their contention do not prove the possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property and all these documents are created and concocted for the purpose of filing this suit. The boundaries of the plaint schedule property are false and that the plaintiff have not approached the Hon'ble Court with clean hands and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief, as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5.Basing on the above said pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the Plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit or not ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent Injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?

3.To what relief ?

6.Heard Arguments on both sides.

7.During course of trial, 1st plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and got examined third party as P.W.2 and got marked the Original Registered Sale deed, dt. 18-03- 2013, bearing document No.677/2013 executed in favour of plaintiffs, as Ex.A1, the certified copy of Registered Sale deed, dated 15-06-1994 bearing Document

No.1956/1994 executed in favour of plaintiffs vendor Labala Mohanarao, as Ex.A2, the certified copy of Registered Sale deed, dt. 15-06-1994 bearing Document

No.1950/1994 executed in favour of plaintiffs vendor Balla Viswanadham, as Ex.A3, the certified copy of Registered Sale deed, dt. 15-06-1994 bearing Document

No.1958/1994 executed in favour of plaintiffs vendor Koppala Babu rao, as Ex.A4, the Original Registered Sale deed, dt. 15-06-1994 bearing Document

No.1957/1994 executed in favour of plaintiffs vendor Pulugu Chinna

Satyannarayana, as Ex.A5, the Original Registered Sale deed, dt. 15-06-1994 bearing Document No.1959/1994 executed in favour of plaintiffs vendor Mukkala

Seetharamaswamy, as Ex.A6, the Original Registered Sale deed, dt.15-06-1994 bearing Document No.1960/1994 executed in favour of plaintiffs vendor Ratnala

Prabakara Rao, as Ex.A7, the Original Registered Sale deed, dt. 15-06-1994 bearing Document No.1962/1994 executed in favour of plaintiffs vendor, as Ex.A8.

On the other hand, Tahsildar, Tekkali is examined as D.W.1 and got marked attested copy of FMB bearing Field No.251 issued by Tahsildar, Tekkali, as Ex.B1,

Attested copy of 8-A Register bearing Sy.No.251/11A, as Ex.B2, attested copy of

Adangal Bearing Sy.No.251/11A, as Ex.B3 and attested award copy related to suit schedule property, as Ex.B4.

8. ISSUE NO.1:

It is the case of plaintiffs that they have purchased the plaint schedule property jointly to an extent of Ac.0.07½ cents in Survey No.251-11A in

Syamasundarapuram village of Tekkali mandal from Labala Mohanarao and others under registered sale deed dt. 18-03-2013. Since then, both the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said property as absolute owners.

The 3rd defendant without any manner of right, title or possession over the plaint schedule property at the instance of local politicians trying to dispossess the plaintiff, by instigating the defendants No.1 & 2. In support of the case of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed Exs.A1 to A8 and got examined one third party as P.W.2.

9.It is argued by the learned counsel for defendants that the government acquired the plaint schedule property for the constructions of NH Authorities, covered under Survey No.251-11A2, in the year 2003 and the compensation was paid to the owners/vendors of the plaint schedule land vide Exs.B1 to B4 but the plaintiffs with a malafide intention to grab unused land belongs to NHAI, created the documents.

10.It is argued by the learned counsel for plaintiffs that Exs.B1 to B4 are self attested documents and created for the sake of this suit and no gazette notification or award under the Land Acquisition and the proceedings were filed with regard to the plaint schedule property. It is also argued that the plaintiff filed their title deed and the link documents of their vendors i.e. Exs.A2 to A8 pertaining to the year 1994 and that since the plaint schedule property is vacant site, the title and possession got together and on the strength of valid title, the plaintiff are entitled to protect their possession as the government is not the true owner.

11.Upon perusal of Exs.A1 to A8, it can be seen that Ex.A1 is sale deed showing that the plaintiffs have purchased the plaint schedule property from their vendors i.e. Exs.A2 to A8 who are APSRTC employees. Upon perusal of Exs.A2 to A8, it can be seen that all the documents were executed by Pappala Simhachalam and his sons i.e. under Ex.A2, in favour of Lambala Mohanarao (APSRTC employee) under Ex.A3 in favour of Balla Viswanadham (APSRTC employee), under Ex.A4 in favour of Koppala Baburao (APSRTC employee), under Ex.A5 in favour of Pulugu

China Satyanarayana (APSRTC employee), under Ex.A6sons in favour of Mukkala

Sitaramaswamy(APSRTC employee), under Ex.A7 in favour of Ratnala Prabhakar

Rao (APSRTC employee), under Ex.A8 in favour of Dharmavarapu Trinadharao (APSRTC employees). The purchasers under Exs.A2 to A8 are the vendors of plaintiffs under Ex.A1.

12.It can be seen from the evidence of P.W.2 that some property including the plaint schedule property near Jagathimetta was purchased by RTC employees and the property is situated in S.No.251/11. Upon perusal of Ex.B4, it can be seen that it is the order copy of Competent Authority and Special Deputy Collector,

Vamshadhara Project, Srikakulam showing the award of compensation to the owners/enjoyers of the landed property which was acquired by the Government for the purpose of National Highway construction covered under different survey numbers in in Tekkali village, wherein under the Survey No.251/11A2, clearly shows that the vendors’ vendor Pappala Simhachalam is the pattadar according to revenue records and RTC employees are the enjoyers on ground according to SD register.

13.It is argued by the learned counsel for plaintiffs that the total extent under

S.No.251-11/A2 is 14 cents. During cross examination D.W.1 admitted that they have acquired under the said survey number to an extent of Ac.0-06 ½ cents and the extent covered Ex.A1 is Ac.0-07 ½ cents. It clearly shows that the plaint schedule property was not acquired by the Government as alleged by the defendants. It is also argued by the learned counsel for plaintiff that there is no point relating to S.No.251/11A in Ex.B4. It clearly shows that the plaint schedule property is different with that of the property covered under S.No.251/11A2.

14.Upon perusal of Ex.A1 sale deed, it can be seen that the survey number is mentioned as S.No.251-11A. Whereas it can be seen from Ex.B2 i.e. 8A register pertaining to the year 2005 that there is no point relating to S.No.251-11A. It is showing the survey numbers as 251-11A2a, 251-11A2b and 251-11A2c. Ex.B2 is much more prior document to Ex.A1 sale deed dated 18.3.2013. Ex.B2 is crucial and related to 1-B, FMB and ROR. It clearly shows that by the year 2005,

S.No.251-11 is subdivided. When the defendants are vehemently opposing the title of the plaintiffs and and their vendors under Ex.A1 to A8, without identification of the property covered under Ex.A1, it cannot be said that it is the remaining Ac.0-07 ½ cents, after acquisition under Ex.B4 to an extent of Ac.0-06 ½ cents out of total extent of Ac.0-14cents, without identification of the schedule property and it is the obligation of the plaintiffs to establish the identity of the property. But the plaintiffs did not take steps for appointment of advocate commissioner for determining the suit schedule property.

15.In a case between Anathula Sudhakar V.P. Buchi Reddy dead by LRs and others reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594, it is held that “where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff’s title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. When there is merely an interference with the plaintiff’s lawful possession or thereat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simplicitor.” In the present case the defendants denied the title of plaintiffs and raised a cloud over the title of plaintiffs and their vendors by filing Exs.B1 to B4. In view of above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs failed to establish their lawful possession over the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered.

16.Issue No.2:

It can be seen from the pleadings and evidence of D.W.1 that the land was acquired by the Government for the constructions of NH authorities. It shows that the NH Authorities is the beneficiary and the result would affects the NH authorities.

Hence, it can be said that NHAI is the necessary party. Though it is argued by the learned counsel for plaintiffs that Exts B.1 to B.4 are self styled documents, it can be seen that Exts B.1 to B.4 are attested copies of Tahsildar, Tekkali. To know the facts whether the plaint schedule property was acquired under Exts B.1 to B.4, even after filing of written statement, the plaintiffs did not take any step for adding the NHAI as necessary party to the suit. On that count also the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party. In view of above discussion and discussion in issue

No.1, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly issue No.2 is answered.

17. Issue No.3:

In the result, the suit is dismissed. However in the facts and circumstances without costs.

Directly typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 25 th day of July, 2025.

CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)

PALASA FAC/TEKKALI

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: 21-11-2024: Borigi Someswara Rao

P.W.2:11-12-2024 : Kaniothi Dasaradhudu

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1:The Original Registered Sale deed, dt.18-03-2013, bearing document No.677/2013 executed in favour of plaintiffs.

Ex.A.2: The certified copy of Registered Sale deed, dt. 15-06-1994 bearing Document No.1956/1954 executed in favour of plaintiffs vendor Labala Mohanarao.

Ex.A.3: The certified copy of Registered Sale deed, dt. 15-06-1994 bearing Document No.1950/1954 executed in favour of plaintiffs vendor Balla Viswanadham.

Ex.A.4:The certified copy of Registered Sale deed, dt. 15-06-1994 bearing Document No.1958/1954 executed in favour of plaintiffs vendor Koppala Babu rao.

Ex.A.5:The Original Registered Sale deed, dt. 15-06-1994 bearing Document No.1957/1954 executed in favour of plaintiffs vendor Pulugu Chinna Satyannarayana.

Ex.A.6:The Original Registered Sale deed, dt. 15-06-1994 bearing Document No.1959/1954 executed in favour of plaintiffs vendor Mukkala Seetharamaswamy.

Ex.A.7:The Original Registered Sale deed, dt.15-06-1994 bearing Document No.1960/1954 executed in favour of plaintiffs vendor Ratnala Prabakara Rao.

Ex.A.8:The Original Registered Sale deed, dt. 15-06-1994 bearing Document No.1962/1954 executed in favour of plaintiffs vendor.

FOR DEFENDANT:

D.W.1: 19-02-2025: S.Dileep Chakravarthi

FOR DEFENDANT: -

Ex.B.1:Attested copy of FMB bearing Field No.251 issued by Tahsildar, Tekkali. Ex.B.2: Attested copy of 8-A Register bearing Sy.No.251/11A.

Ex.A.3:Attested copy of Adangal Bearing Sy.No.251/11A.

Ex.A.4:Attested award copy related to suit schedule property.

CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)

PALASA FAC/TEKKALI

Date of Presentation:25-10-2018 Date of Filing:25-10-2018

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), TEKKALI

Present:- Smt U.Madhuri,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),Palasa.

FAC/ Civil Judge (Junior Division),Tekkali.

Friday, this the 25 th day of July , 2025.

Original Suit No. 50 of 2018.

Between:

1. Borigi Someswararao, S/o Late Vishnumurty, aged 59 years, business, Srinivasanagar, Tekkali village/post/Mandalam in Srikakulam district.

2.Jami Santhakumari, W/o Ganesh, aged 41 years, housewife, Resident of Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam city and District. …Plaintiffs.

And:

1. The District Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam district.

2. The Tahasildhar, Tekkali, Tekkali Mandalam, Srikakulam district.

3. The Village revenue officer, Akkavaram village, Tekkali Mandalam, Srikakulam District.

...Defendants.

This is a suit filed for Permanent Injunction, restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property and for costs the suit.

The suit is notionally valued @ Rs.20,000/- for the purpose of court fee

and Jurisdiction for relief of permanent injunction and the plaintiffs has paid

a court fee of Rs.1,386/- U/Sec 26(c) of the A.P.C.F and S.V.Act, 1956.

This case coming before me on 17.06.2025 in the presence of Sri P.Babu Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Assistant Government Pleader, Advocate for the Defendant Nos 1 to 3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this Court doth Order and Decree as follows :

i) that the suit is be and the same is hereby dismissed; and ii) that the plaintiffs do bear their own costs (Plaint Schedule and Valuation-Slip are herewith attached)

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, on this the 25 th day of July, 2025.

CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)

PALASA FAC/TEKKALI

Memorandum of Costs

For Plaintiff Amount For Defendant Amount

Court Fee on plaintRs. 1,386.00Cost Memo not filed.

Court Fee on VakalatRs. 3.00

Court Fee on ProcessRs. 200.00

Advocate FeeRs. 3,000.00

Costs IncurredRs. 4,589.00

That there be no Order as to Costs of the suit.

CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION)

PALASA FAC/TEKKALI

NOTE :

The parties should apply as soon as possible for return of all the Exhibits, which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after expiry of three years period, from the date of Decree & Judgment.

Certified that the Decree is drafted properly.

Superintendent.

Date: 04.08.2025IIFAINI

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF lST CLASS,

P.a:rH-a-PATN.4i!.

I

Present: Ms. M. Roshini,

Judicial Magistrate of 1"t Class,

Pathapatnam ittonciav. this 4n ciav oi augusr.. 2A25

CALENDAR CASE IVo. 323/20A

BETWEEN:

The State Represented by the The Enforcement of Bureau sub -lnspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Pathapatnam.

.... Complainant

AND:

Potnuru Chandrasekhar, S/O Sreeramulu, 37 years,

R/O Basiwada village, Jalumuru mandal, Srikakulam.

.... Accuseci

This is the case coming before this court for final hearing in Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fur the complainant and Rao, Advocate br the Accused and having stood over for consideration on this day dr ru u lll (rur t utlrvEr gu Lr ltr r(Jlluwll rg, -

JUDGEMENT

1.

The State Represented by rle inspectorof Spetcat EntorcementBureau,

Pathapatnam filed this case in Crime No.79I2024 alleging that the Accused has committed the ofience punishable under Sec-tion 34(aX1) of AP ExciseAmendment 4d.2023.

fhe case of orosecution in brid is that:

2

a) On 14.04.2024 at about 15.40 hours LW4 along with his staff LW1 to LI/V3 in order to conduct raid, on receipt of prior inbrmation they rushed to Avalangi viiiage junction Saravakota. L.W.4 observeci one maie person carrying bag.

u

11Plr

Date: 04.08.20252IIDRAFTII

The police detained him and enquired about his name and other details and then verified the bag and fuund 25 bot0es of Manjeera whisky each 180m1 containing label br sale in Andhra Pradesh only. on enquiry he confessed that he purchased the same to sell them at a higher price. The L.W.4 seized the piopr i.y arid drawtr sarrrpie fi ori'r i.rag urtder ilte cover'of r.niirir er r<.c repxrt arrci sent the sample br chemical analysis. Later LW.4 anesEd the Accused and registered the case in Crime No.7912024 under Section 34(aX1) of AP Excise

Amendment Act 2023. Lgfier the LW4 issued section 41A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and on receipt of chemical analysis report LW4 liled chargesheet

3.

This court took cognizanoe fur the ofience punishable under Section 34(a) ( 1 ) of AP Excise Amendment Acl 2023 against the Accused.

4.

On appearance of Accuseci case copies were f,umisheci on him uncier section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He was examined under Seclion 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and framed charges under Section 34('t) of AP Excise Amendment Act 2020. Read over the charges and explained to him in

Telugu Language, and on understanding the same he pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

5.

ln tial, to establish the prosecution case, PWI and P\AZ were examined anci markeci Ex. Pl to P3 anci MO.i was markeci through this court by them. Leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L\A2 and LlAf3.

6.

After the closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was o<amined under

Seclion 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 and inoiminating material

appeared in evidence of prosecution is placed bebre him, br whicfr he denied the same and reported no Defunse Evidence.

7.

Heard arguments of both sides.

a) The ieameci Assisiant pubiic prosecutor argueci ihat iirc proseaniion iras proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therebre prayed to convict the accused with maximum punishment.\

b) Per contra. the leamed counsel br debnse argued that orosecution did not examine any independent witnesses, the lnvestigation Oficer did not secure any mediators at the scene of oftnce though the scene of ofience is a hlsy

u Ntir

Date: 04.08.20253IIFAINI

locality. He turther argued that the lnvestigation Offcer f,ailed to fullow

\1,

procedure under Section 100(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 i.e, search and seizure. Thus, the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of th

Accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed this court to acquit the

Arcused.

8. On Perusal of material on record and after hearing the submissions of botr sides, the point arise br determination is:

'whether rhe Pros*uion has prcveci the guiit oi

the Accused for the offence punishable under

section 31(1) of AP Excise Amendment Act 2023

beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.

ln order to prove the case of prosecution, LW1 was examined as PW1 and this court marked thb Ex. P1 through him.

Ex. P1 : Occurrence report

LW4 was examineci as PW2, who registereci the case uncier the herein crime number.

Ex. P2: FIR

Ex. P3: Chemical Analysis Report Mo.1 : samole boftle of Liouor

10.

For better appreciation of evidence, it is better to look into the provision of law br sake of convenience of this court.

cEFrlrll tl D^--la:- a- rt--t i---r -.- r*I,rrrt u.|. r srEr.tE rl, rrEgoa llrilt a \ G{5 - Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rulg notification or order madg issued or pased thereunder or of any licence or prmit granted or issud under this Act.-

(a) imtrrtq aeorts, transports, manufuctureq collects 0r possesses or setts any intoxicant; or

11.

From the above lines, it is clear that the prosecution has to prove the ingredients of the offences with which the accused char.qed. To substantiate the case

p4-*

Date: 04.08.20254IIDRAFTII

of prosecution, the prosecution examined LWI as PWI and PWl in his examination- in-chief deposed that On 14.M.2024 at about 15.40 hours LW4 along with his staff himself , L\/v2 and L\AB in order to conduct raid, on receipt of prior infcrmation they rushed to Avalangi village junction Saravakota. L.W.4 observed one male pelson carryiirg bag. Tirey deiairred iiiiri and enquired ai.rout lris iiairre arid oiiier detaiis aird then verified the bag and tound 25 bottles of Manjeera whisky each 180m1 containing label br sale in Andhra Pradesh only. on enquiry he conbssed that he purchased the same to sell them at a higher price. The L.W.4 seized the property and drawn sample fiom bag under the cover ofoccunence report in their presence. The P\AZ who is the lnvestigating oficer in the herein case deposed the contents of chargesheet and br

brevity this court reftain from repeating the same. And further in the cross

examination of PWi anci PV'v2 it is eiiciteci by the ieameci counsei fur accuseci that no independent witness was examined though the scene of offence is a busy locality and there are sarpanch and ward members in that village but they did not ask them to ac1 as mediators to the search and seizure.

12.

From testimony of PWI and P\rV2 it is clearthat no independentwihess was examined and it was argued by the accused counsel that police did not fullow the procedure envisaged in section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C and thereby the seizure is iiiegai. nt this juncture, it is pertinent to refur Section i00(a) of Cocie of Criminai

Procedure, 1973.

Sedion 1fi1(4): Befure making a search under this chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shatl catl upon two 0r more independent and reEectabte inhabitants of the tocality in which the ptace to be searched is situate or of any other locatity if no such inhabitant of the sard locaity rs avartabte or rs wrlirng to be a wrtness to the search, t0 attend and witnes the search and may isue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do.

a, Err.m +ha alrnrra linac anr{ frzrrn tha faofirnarmr .rf DtArl anr{ DtAll il rrrac l, lv Lvg(. I lvl ', admitted by them that the said scene of ofience is a busy locality and there are

l,)/'W*

ltFAtwt

Date: 04.08.20255

sarpanch and ward members but did not examine the independent witnesses

even explain the circumstances which prevented them to examine offcial

respectable people in the locality of scene of offence in the occurrence reporU Ex.P and no special report was prepared to that efiect, which casb a severe doubt over 'ti re searcr'r aird seizure pr r.lriess.

0n this point this court ptaced its retiance on Para 18 of f,h*r SaM bht v lhe tub of AP rendaed by lhnlile lP lfft Curt'ot canrse ii cannoi be sairi ihat ihe evkiene oi a wiines, who acmnpani*i the pllice cannot be alwap believed nor it can be discarded only on the ground that he acconpanied the exciw or polie officials. flri vhere in a cag the ercis officialo having an nppftmtty t0 take r*pctable moiiatart di nnt mtko anv affarl lo tabo ctnh morlirtorc iorl2inlv il casts a doubt about the pro*cution version.....' 0n the point, this court ptaced its reliance on the cases rendered by Hmtte High Court of Aldtra Prade$ in S,Mt W Mr t lle Me ofAP reported in 2tll9 fi) lS 1&0,inhra2., relied on Gajamkrtlarayan's cme 2O5 F) AIIT (mLJ I (A.0, where it was hetd lhal - 'thrc lron the eyidene on record it is clear that excise official picked up panch witnesses at the police station and took along vith then to the sene of offence...-.neither the tatinony of Pllll nor that of PWJ discloxs that they tried to secure indepndent respctable inhabttants of the locality where the offence was allqedly connilted, t0 ad as nediaton k. Pl hnchanana, als dox not disclos that any etrnrt tvas nade by excise 1lttcals t0 ffflre tndependent rcspectable inhabttants 0f the lncalfty. lherefun in the ahsence of spuific evidence in that rqard, lan bound to cone to the mrcksion that the prwbions of section 100(4) tr.P.C are not fotlowed by the Excise officials while eizing the plastic can containing ,fr t:^.,^- tl^--a--- aL- ^^:-,,-^ -^)-:^ tL:^ ^^- :^: -^-, ,u L, quut., t tcr et ut E, ar to \rctz ut E t, touc,t t tt tt.r t o.>o to Ltcgot.

'13.

From the testimony of PWI and PW2 and cases referred by this court, this court is of opinion that the seizure conducted by the police is not legal and they couio not esubiisn tne tact that the accused is in possession or transporting of iiquor.

ln such a case it is not desirable to convict the Accused on the evidence of PWI and

PIA2 and the confession made by the accused in the presence of police is not proved

M-wrt{/*

Date: 04.08.20256IIDRAFTII

and is hit by Section 25 of lndian Evidence Act. Therefore, as per the evidence of prosecution, this court is of firm opinion that the evidence lead by pros€cution is not suffcient to bring home the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, the point is answered.

14.

iieire, iii view of tire r'oregoirig tiiscussiorr, tr'ris rxrurt firrds tirai tire

Prosecution could not establish the guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable doubt though it examined PWI and PIAZ to support Prosecution. Hence, this court firds that the charges fiamed against theAccused is not proved beyond all the reasonable doubt and Accused is enUtled br acquittal.

ln the result, the Accused is not found guilty for the offence under

S,ection oi AP Excise Amenciment Act 2A23. Accordingiy, the Accuseti

"i(a)(i)

is acquitted for the above offence under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 and the accused shall execute a bond of Rs.10,0fi1/-. The

property i.e. Mos 1 is hereby ordered to be destroyed after the expirv of aopea!

tame.

Typed by me in my personal laptop and pronounced in open court on this &

Day of August, 2025 and given under my hand and seal of this court.

t K

Judicial Magistrate oll

Date: 04.08.2025Class,

Pathapatnam.

Date: 04.08.20257IIFAIRJI

q

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined For Prosecution:ForAccused:

1 . PW1: T. Venkatesh, constable- None-

2. PtlV2: B. Srinivasarao, Sub-lnspector of Police, SEB

ExhibiG Marked Ex. P1: Occurence report Ex. P2: FIR Ex. P3: Chemical analysis Report.

Material Obiects Marked:

MO:l is sample bottle of Liquor

M

tl

5,""",

Date: 04.08.2025Judicial Magistrateof

Pathapatnam.

Note: Record consigned to record room, after duly indexed.

I

Date: 04.08.2025IIFAINI

CALENDAR & JUDGEMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE COURT OF JPATHAPATNAM

Date of Ofience14.U.2024 I

/Lt"

Date of Report14.M.2024

Date of Apprehension of Accused14.U.2024

Date of Accused released on BailSection 41A Notice

Date of commence of Trail21.02.2025

Date of Closure of TrailM.08.2025

Date of sentence or order of theu.08.2025 court.

Explanation for Delay and

No Delay - Remarks: WW CZJI ZVZ4 Ar.rr.aLrl I IAL ValElrual !,a\iE lYU.

Potnuru Chandrasekhar, S/O Sreeramulu, 37

Name and Address of Accused years, RyO Basiwada village, Jalumuru mandal, aiLalzr rlam

Name andAddress of

The State Represented by the ComplainantThe Enforcement of Bureau sub -lnspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Pathapatnam. Section Of Lawi Section 34(a)(1) ofAP Excise Amendment Act 2020

Finding of the CourtJudicial Magistrate of 'lst Class, Pathapatnam

Sentence or Order of the Courtln the result, the case is abated against A2 and the A /^-r ro6d A'l ic nnf frrr rnd ar riltrr fnr lha arffanna r rnr{ae Seclion 34(aX1) of AP Excise Arnendrnent Ad 2O2O. Accordingly, the Accused is acquitted for the above offence under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the bail bonds of the Accused, if any, shall be in force for a period six rnonths under Section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The property i.e, Mos 1 is hereby ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Judiciar ffi:uffi4*,,

Pathapatnam. Coov to:

1. Hon'ble lstADJ, Court, Srikakulam.

2. Deputy commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Srikakulam.

-1-

APSR0D0003372025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS :: TEKKALI.

Present :: Smt.U.Madhuri,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALASA.

FAC/JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, TEKKALI.

Friday, this the 1st day of August, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE No. 04 of 2021.

Between :

The State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tekkali. …Complainant. And :

Karunya Bhubana, S/o late Narayana, Aged 54 yrs, R/o Chinnakandra Street, Tekkali Village and Mandal.

... Accused.

This case is coming on 18.07.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant; and of Sri D Dharama Rao and Sri I Mallesu, Learned Counsels for the accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tekkali, filed charge-sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.504/2020, for the offence punishable under Section 7-(B) r/w 8(B) of

A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

2. The averments of the charge-sheet is as follows:-

On 09-09-2020 at about 08:00 hrs on credible information LW.3/B Ganesh,

Sub-Inspector of Police Tekkali along with LWs. 1 & 2 /V Vistnu, PC and V

Balakrishna PC left in Government Jeep bearing No.AP18 P 5687 at the hut of

Karunaya Bhusana , Chinnakandra Street, Tekkali Village and rushed to the scene by stopping the vehicle, one person investigation, initially inquiry about the name and address of the said that. LW.3 caught him with the help of Lws.1 and 2 at some -2- distance. During investigation, initially inquiry about the name and address of the said person. At first, he started prevaricated statement. Later he voluntarily stated that “My name is Karunya Bhubana caste, R/o Chinnakandra street, Tekkali village and mandal living by doing fishes business.. Due to running Lock town about the effect of

COVID-19 and I decided to sell the arrackin order to get profits. So, I used to go to

Kothuru village of Meliaputti Mandal to Kothuru village of Meliaputti Mandal and bought 10 liters of ID Arrack at unknown person, each liter cost of Rs.150, 10 x 150-

Rs. 1500/- and same at my house in higher prices and brought ID Arrack and selling the meanwhile caught by police". During investigation, I sent PC.303 for mediators my house in order to sell the same in higher prices.. white colour plastic cane, found approximately 10 liters of ID Arrack. Later, LW.3 asked him about any permit of Govt.

license for the arrack business, but due to non availability of the mediators at the spot. So, on verification of then he stated that he is not having any sort of permit or

Govt. license for having any permit or Govt. license is liable for punishment u/s. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of AP Prohibition Amendment Act, 2020, I have seized the total contraband by As he is transporting/selling the ID arrack without separating the sample ID arrack (250 ML) from seized signatures of the accused on the separate slip and same was stick on the sample ID arrack intending to send the same to concerned authority of

RPEL, Visakhapatnam for analysis under the cover of my own occurrence report on 09-09-2020 from 08.00 hours to 08.45hours. Then, he brought the Accused, case property alongwith the report to the Station and immediately LW.3/Sub-Inspector registered the Mediators Report as a case in Cr.No.504/2020, for the offence punishable 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused was remanded to judicial custody.

During the Course of investigation, on 21.09.2020, LW.3 sent the sample to the

Regional Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Visakhapatnam, for chemical analysis purpose and sample was examined and a report was issued vide C.E.No.2386/2020, dt.16.11.2020, Sl.No.20226 is Illicitly Distilled Liquor and unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. The accused was released as per the Bail Orders in

Crl.MP.No.288/2020, dt.15.09.2020. The remaining property, except the samples, was

destroyed as per the Destruction Orders. On completion of investigation, LW.3/B -3-

Ganesh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Tekkali, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

3.The charge-sheet was taken-on-file against the Accused under 7-B r/w 8-B of

A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the charge-sheet and other documents were furnished to him under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Sec.239 of Cr.P.C and a charge was framed for the said offence, against him, read-over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 was examined, Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1 was marked. The evidence of LW’s.1, 2 and 4 were given-up by the Learned APP, in view of the evidence of PW.1.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, with regard to the incriminating material available on record. He denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

7.Heard on both sides and perused the case record.

8. Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for

the offence under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition

(Amendment) Act, 2020, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

09.In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined

LW.3/B.Ganesh, SI of police, Tekkali PS is examined as P.W.1 and got marked occurrence report as Ex.P1, Original F.I.R as Ex.P.2, Letter of Advice as Ex.P.3 and

Analyst Report as Ex.P.4 and M.O.1 is one sample bottle, on behalf of the

Prosecution. The Learned APP submitted that the prosecution has established the -4- guilt of the accused by examining the Investigating Officer coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.4 and MO.1. Hence, the accused is liable to be convicted.

10.The Learned Counsel for accused argued that the P.W.3 police did not follow the search procedure laid down under Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C and failed to secure the mediators from the locality of the scene of offence, it is contrary to the procedure laid down under Sec.100(4)(a) of Cr.P.C and there is no evidence to show that the accused is having possession of ID liquor arrack except Ex.P3/Mediators Report. He also argued that the alleged mediators did not support the case of prosecution and in

Ex.P.1/Occurrence Report, P.W.1 did not mention the descriptive and address particulars of the accused and boundaries of the scene of offence and the particulars about the place at where Ex.P.3/Mediators Report was scribed and contended that the police foisted this false case for statistical purpose, by planting the alleged M.O.1, as such, the Ex.P.1/Occurrence Report cannot be relied upon, without independent corroborating evidence and prayed the Court for acquittal of the accused.

11.Now, the Court will scrutinize the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex’s.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1. “Whether the prosecution is able to establish the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt or not”?

12.On careful perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the Ex.P1/

Occurrence Report, the alleged scene of offence is at Chinnakandara street of

Tekkali village. But, Ex.P1/ Occurrence Report is silent with regard to the boundaries of the scene of offence and PW.1 clearly deposed that Chinnakandara street is one of the street in Tekkali and the revenue officials are available in Tekkal and it is busy locality. He has not tried to secure the revenue people as mediator. He has not drawn rough sketch at the scene of offence.

13.It can be seen from the evidence of P.W.1 that the scene of offence is busy locality. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that despite his efforts, he could not secure VRO or other revenue officials as mediators despite his efforts. But there is no evidence to show that to whom they made request to act as mediator. Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C empowered the investigating officer to secure mediator by issuing written summons.

-5-

But the investigating officer failed to issue any notices or secure the mediators from the vicinity. When the private persons are not come forward to act as mediator, then it is the duty of the investigating officer to secure the concerned VRO or VRA or

Panchayat Secretary to act as mediators by giving summons to them.

14.As can be seen from the evidence of PW.1 that P.W.1 on credible information, went to conduct raid. In such circumstances, PW.1 ought to have secure the mediators before reaching the scene of offence, instead of securing mediators after apprehending the accused. Though there is no legal impediment to rely upon the sole evidence of investigating officer, if it inspires confidence of the Court, the investigating officer has to explain under what circumstances she had decided to conduct police proceedings and the efforts what have been made by him to secure mediators. From the evidence of P.W.1, the Court can safely confer that the excise police did not follow the procedure as laid down under Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

15.It is the case of the prosecution that basing on the confession of accused, the

Excise police seized 268 dowells whisky of 180 ml each and 283 of Imperial blue each 180 ml bottles from the possession of accused under the cover of Ex.P1 occurrence report. It is the case of the prosecution that on enquiry the accused confessed that he purchased said liquor bottles in Orissa state, for selling purpose at higher prices. But the P.W.1 did not conduct any enquiry, in regard to the source of said liquor bottles. It is well settled proposition that the Excise officials also comes within the meaning of police officer, as such, any amount of confession made by the accused during the custody of the Excise officials is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence

Act. Ex.P1 Occurrence report is the basic document to the case of prosecution and the recitals of the Ex.P1 shall be established through the evidence of PW.1. If Ex.P1 police proceedings is discarded in lieu of legal lacuna, there is no other incriminating material against the accused to believe the version of the prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. This

Court is of the considered opinion that it is not safe to come to conclusion that the accused committed the offence publishable under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of

A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020, basing on the sole evidence of P.W.1, in the -6- absence of independent, cogent and convincing evidence and the benefit of doubt, would goes in favour of the accused. Hence, considering the above discussion, the

Court is of the opinion that the prosecution is not able to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused, shall be in force for a period of Six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 1 st August, 2025.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Palasa.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

FAC/Tekkali.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution : For Defence : P.W.1 : 18.07.2025 : B Ganesh, Sub-Inspector, Tekkali. - None -

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :- For Defence: Ex.P.1 : Occurrence Report. - Nil - Ex.P.2 : Original FIR. Ex.P.3 : Letter of Advice. Ex.P.4 : Analyst Report.

Material Objects

For Prosecution:- For Defence: M.O.1 : One sample bottle. - Nil -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Palasa.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

FAC/Tekkali.

-7-

FORM NO.72 Calendar & Judgment (for use in cases where there are more accused persons than one)

DISTRICT OF SRIKAKULAM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS, TEKKALI.

C.C. No.04/2021

REPORT OR

DATE OF OFFENCE:09.09.2020COMPLAINT:09.09.2020

APPREHENSION OF

ACCUSED :09.09.2020RELEASE ON 15.09.2020 REMAND OF ACCUSED: ACCUSED :09.09.2020

COMMENCEMENT OF

TRIAL:18.07.2025CLOSE OF TRIAL:18.07.2025

SENTENCE OF

ORDER:01.08.2025

EXPLANATION OF

DELAY AND Delay due to non-production of prosecution witnesses REMARKS: JUDGMENT IN C.C:04/2021 Cr.No.504/2020 The State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, COMPLAINANT:Tekkali. NAME, AGE, FATHER’SKarunya Bhubana, S/o late Narayana, Aged 54 yrs, R/o NAME, RELIGION, Chinnakandra Street, Tekkali Village and Mandal.

CALLING, RESIDENCE

AND TALUK OF THE

ACCUSED:

U/Sec.7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020. OFFENCE:

FINDING:Found not guilty

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7-B r/w 8-B of A.P.Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 2020 and the accused is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C, for the said offence. The bail bonds of SENTENCE: the accused shall be in force for a period of Six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Palasa.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

FAC/Tekkali.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble 1st Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

-8-